BACKGROUND: Fluoroscopic-guided placement of a percutaneous decompression gastrostomy tube (PDGT) is used to palliate patients with malignant bowel obstruction (MBO). We report our clinical experience in cases of MBO and ascites that were known to be technically difficult and at increased risk for complications after PDGT placement. METHODS: Between October 2005 and April 2010, a total of 89 consecutive oncology patients with MBO and ascites underwent at least one attempt at PDGT placement. We retrospectively reviewed the electronic medical record to collect demographic details, procedure information, and morbidity and mortality data. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to calculate median survival after PDGT. RESULTS: Ninety-three new gastrostomy encounters occurred in 89 patients. The primary and secondary technical success rates were 72 % (67 of 93) and 77.4 % (72 of 93), respectively. Inadequate gastric distention was the reason for failure in 84.6 % (22 of 26) of the cases in which the initial PDGT attempt was unsuccessful. For ascites management, 13 patients underwent paracentesis and 78 patients underwent placement of an intraperitoneal catheter. The overall complication rate in successful placements was 13.9 %, with a major complication rate of 9.7 %. After PDGT, the median overall survival rate was 28.5 days (95 % confidence interval 20-42). CONCLUSIONS: PDGT is feasible in the majority of patients with MBO and ascites, although there is an inherent risk of major complications. An intraperitoneal catheter can be used to manage ascites to facilitate PDGT.
BACKGROUND: Fluoroscopic-guided placement of a percutaneous decompression gastrostomy tube (PDGT) is used to palliate patients with malignant bowel obstruction (MBO). We report our clinical experience in cases of MBO and ascites that were known to be technically difficult and at increased risk for complications after PDGT placement. METHODS: Between October 2005 and April 2010, a total of 89 consecutive oncology patients with MBO and ascites underwent at least one attempt at PDGT placement. We retrospectively reviewed the electronic medical record to collect demographic details, procedure information, and morbidity and mortality data. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to calculate median survival after PDGT. RESULTS: Ninety-three new gastrostomy encounters occurred in 89 patients. The primary and secondary technical success rates were 72 % (67 of 93) and 77.4 % (72 of 93), respectively. Inadequate gastric distention was the reason for failure in 84.6 % (22 of 26) of the cases in which the initial PDGT attempt was unsuccessful. For ascites management, 13 patients underwent paracentesis and 78 patients underwent placement of an intraperitoneal catheter. The overall complication rate in successful placements was 13.9 %, with a major complication rate of 9.7 %. After PDGT, the median overall survival rate was 28.5 days (95 % confidence interval 20-42). CONCLUSIONS: PDGT is feasible in the majority of patients with MBO and ascites, although there is an inherent risk of major complications. An intraperitoneal catheter can be used to manage ascites to facilitate PDGT.
Authors: C Ripamonti; R Twycross; M Baines; F Bozzetti; S Capri; F De Conno; B Gemlo; T M Hunt; H B Krebs; S Mercadante; R Schaerer; P Wilkinson Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2001-06 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Michael J Wallace; Kenneth W Chin; Thomas B Fletcher; Curtis W Bakal; John F Cardella; Clement J Grassi; John D Grizzard; Alan D Kaye; David C Kushner; Paul A Larson; Lawrence A Liebscher; Patrick R Luers; Matthew A Mauro; Sanjoy Kundu Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: H J Solomon; K H Atkinson; J V Coppleson; P M Elliott; C R Houghton; M H Tattersall; D Green Journal: Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol Date: 1983-05 Impact factor: 2.100
Authors: Anne Dittrich; Barbara Schubert; Michael Kramer; Felicitas Lenz; Karin Kast; Ulrich Schuler; Markus K Schuler Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2017-04-22 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Michelle B Chen; Cynthia Hajal; David C Benjamin; Cathy Yu; Hesham Azizgolshani; Richard O Hynes; Roger D Kamm Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2018-06-18 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Jonathan Cools-Lartigue; Jonathan Spicer; Braedon McDonald; Stephen Gowing; Simon Chow; Betty Giannias; France Bourdeau; Paul Kubes; Lorenzo Ferri Journal: J Clin Invest Date: 2013-07-01 Impact factor: 14.808
Authors: K S Rath; D Loseth; P Muscarella; G S Phillips; J M Fowler; D M O'Malley; D E Cohn; L J Copeland; E L Eisenhauer; R Salani Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2013-01-29 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Robert J Litwin; Alda L Tam; Rahul A Sheth; Steven M Yevich; Johanna L Chan; Amir A Jazaeri; Josiah K Halm; Sanjay Gupta; Steven Y Huang Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2021-05-17
Authors: Yeh Chen Lee; Nazlin Jivraj; Catherine O'Brien; Tanya Chawla; Eran Shlomovitz; Sarah Buchanan; Jenny Lau; Jennifer Croke; Johane P Allard; Preeti Dhar; Stephane Laframboise; Sarah E Ferguson; Neesha Dhani; Marcus Butler; Pamela Ng; Terri Stuart-McEwan; Pamela Savage; Lisa Tinker; Amit M Oza; Stephanie Lheureux Journal: Obstet Gynecol Int Date: 2018-05-17
Authors: Sarah B Bateni; Alicia A Gingrich; Amanda R Kirane; Candice A M Sauder; Sepideh Gholami; Richard J Bold; Frederick J Meyers; Robert J Canter Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2021-04-07 Impact factor: 5.344